What is inaccurate or offensive in this title/description?
DTrain2002-PGO
Posts: 158 ✭✭✭
I recently submitted a new Wayspot for the welcome sign for the small town of Frontier, ND, which is located within the boundaries of Fargo, ND, which I included in the description. It was rejected today for "Title or description is inaccurate or offensive," but I'm not seeing anything that's wrong and/or offensive:
There small towns are not uncommon in rural areas, and there are a few others in the Fargo area. They have their own city governments, mayors, etc.
Could it be the use of municipality, people not knowing what the word is? Did the reviewers not even look at the map to confirm that, yes, this is actually in Frontier, and that it does exist? Could it have been auto-rejected due to Frontier having one of the zip codes of Fargo, which again is not uncommon?
Any help is appreciated!
Comments
There's been a lot of nominations getting rejected with this reason. From what @Elijustrying-ING has said, it's potentially a bug and rejection reasons should probably be ignored at the moment if this is what you got.
For what it's worth though, these kinds of signs aren't typically eligible. They get 👎🏻 for exploration, socialising and exercising.
"Frontier" may be offensive to some hyper-sensitive people because of American history on colonialism. But that's silly and the incorrect rejection reason.
Welcome to town signs are acceptable as long as there is a safe pedestrian path. This is different from what looks similar to neighborhood or apartment entrance signs that are not eligible.
But the title needs improvements. Drop the annoying "Sign" word because there is no reason to point out the obvious. I would say "Welcome to Frontier, ND" and that's it. Make sure you use lower caps on "to" under APA Style writing in USA. In the description, revise into one or two brief sentences on interesting history or reasons to visit in Frontier, ND.
Please enlighten me what makes these different from neighbourhood entrance signs, when a town is just basically a big neighbourhood? How does it meet the criteria of a great place to exercise, socialise or explore?
Town "welcome" signs generally don't meet any of the three acceptance criteria. Not a great place to be social, exercise, or explore. As is often the case, there will be exceptions that do meet one of these criteria, and there are certainly a ton of wrongly-accepted ones already in the system.
Can we stop saying whether or not something is acceptable here? Ugh...Not what I was asking. Go over to the criteria clarification forums.
Well, in USA, people slam on the auto brakes and pull over. Get out of their cars and take photos at welcome signs and then post it on social media. The bigger and more customized, the better. It's an American fetish thing.
But no one does that at neighborhood and apartment signs or worse, shopping plaza signs.
You have been explained: there is a bug for that rejection reason.
Why are you telling me what I was already told? Why do you think I was replying about those discussing criteria? It's because I got my answer, and am sick of getting tagged in something I wasn't asking about. Geez people!
If you are annoyed by notifications, I would suggest finding your forum notification preferences and adjusting them accordingly. But being aggressive and rude to people attempting to assist you on a public forum will get you nowhere, even if you don't think their feedback is helpful.
But you also make many feel dumb when going away from the asked question. That's why I don't like the forums so much, because a lot of you think WAY TOO HIGH of yourselves. Seriously, stop acting like you all are the smartest and know best, because you don't always do.
I don't need criteria clarification; if I did, I would have gone over there and asked. I also live in a rural area, and know how important these signs are for many towns that have very few, if any, Wayspots. Now keep that in mind the next time you get a town welcome sign nomination to review!
You were confused why your nomination was rejected for title/description. I explained it was a bug and told you the actual reason it was likely rejected for, which is that it doesn't meet eligibility criteria.
Have you tried to submit Maple Valley Park? I can see it doesn't have a wayspot, and as a park it should be eligible.
Got one rejected for the same reason, it's the third time I've tried to get it accepted. Other rejection reasons were "pedestrian access" and "temporary or seasonal display" - it's permanent and a trail marker so has safe access which is why I keep trying.
I think I'll just file it under "rejected for some random reason known only the the reviewers".
I'm not upset with you, as you did assist with my question. I'm upset with those that decide to give their opinions as to whether or not a nomination will get approved in the review process, and then those asking why would/wouldn't they get approved. Leave your opinions to when your reviewing, and if you have questions about criteria, go to the correct forum.
When others give their opinions, saying "that'll never get approved," it makes others, including myself, feel down, feel less than.
If I get back to that part of town, I'll look into the park, the 7th Day church, and the city hall in Frontier. There really isn't many places I go to that are south of 52nd Ave S, and I am surprised that park doesn't have a Wayspot, as the park to the east of Frontier has a few.
change the description that's your best bet
I am sorry that you felt discouraged, but I believe the folks here are just trying to help. Wouldn’t it be better to know now that the nomination is unlikely to be approved, so as not to be disappointed with multiple rejections in the future. Unfortunately, there are many existing way points that don’t or do not any longer meet the eligibility criteria, so they can be misleading if people base new submissions on what has previously been approved. I think folks are just offering advice based on their experience .